High Court · 2025

Revisionist :- Shiva, Thru. His Father Putti Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheo Prakash Singh,Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amol Kumar Srivastava,Shivanshu Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Shivanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ complainant.

2. Present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board Raibareli by which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected and also against the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by Additional District and Session Judge Raibareli by which the appeal of the revisionist has been rejected in Criminal Appeal Juvenile Number 32 of 2022 "Shiv Vs. State of U.P." related to case Crime No. 377/2022 under Section 376 AB of IPC and 5 N/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Deeh, District Raibareli. In the present criminal revision both the orders have been assailed, and prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that juvenile is an accused in Case Crime No. 377/2022 under Section 376 AB of IPC and 5 N/6 of the POCSO Act.

4. According to the First Information Report it has been stated that on the date of the occurrence the minor prosecutrix was playing nearby Mobile Tower when the revisionist her inside the Tower and sexually assaulted her. She went crying weeping to her father and reported the said incident.

5. It is aforesaid fact that First Information Report was lodged and the prosecutrix was also examined. The statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded which supports the case of the prosecution and also medial was conducted which prima facie corroborates the case of the prosecution.

6. It has been stated the revisionist is in jail in this case since 3.2.2021 and has spent nearly 3 and half years in custody.

7. It has been submitted that there is no eye witness to the said incident and also as the fact narrated in the First Information Report is highly improbable. The tower in which the incident is said to have occurred is unmanned by the Chaukidar. Further it has been stated that employee has been falsely implicated in the said case due to some land dispute between the parties.

8. The bail has been vehemently opposed by the respondents and has been submitted that considering the age of the prosecutrix and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are sufficient to implicate the culpability of the juvenile.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstances, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstances. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration.

8. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon.

9. The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are :- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

10. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite parties, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances relevant aspect of the case considering the grant of bail to the juvenile would be condition laid down in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. From the report of the Probationary Officer I do not find anything adverse which may to reject the application of bail. I have also considered the period of custody of juvenile which is 03 years and 08 months accordingly the said application is to be considered keeping in the mind the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the condition laid down therein.

12. Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 9.9.2022 and 1.11.2022 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

13. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is allowed.

1. Let the revisionist - Shiva involved in Case Crime No. 377/2022 under Section 376 AB of IPC and 5 N/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Deeh, District Raibareli, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "father", who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial; (ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC. (iv) The revisionist or his family members shall not attempt to make any contact with the informant or his family members. . Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Muk (Alok Mathur, J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Revisionist :- Shiva, Thru. His Father Putti Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheo Prakash Singh,Dilip Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amol Kumar Srivastava,Shivanshu Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Shri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Shri Shivanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/ complainant.

2. Present criminal revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.09.2022 passed by Juvenile Justice Board Raibareli by which the bail application of the revisionist has been rejected and also against the order dated 01.11.2022 passed by Additional District and Session Judge Raibareli by which the appeal of the revisionist has been rejected in Criminal Appeal Juvenile Number 32 of 2022 "Shiv Vs. State of U.P." related to case Crime No. 377/2022 under Section 376 AB of IPC and 5 N/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Deeh, District Raibareli. In the present criminal revision both the orders have been assailed, and prayer for releasing the revisionist on bail has been made.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that juvenile is an accused in Case Crime No. 377/2022 under Section 376 AB of IPC and 5 N/6 of the POCSO Act.

4. According to the First Information Report it has been stated that on the date of the occurrence the minor prosecutrix was playing nearby Mobile Tower when the revisionist her inside the Tower and sexually assaulted her. She went crying weeping to her father and reported the said incident.

5. It is aforesaid fact that First Information Report was lodged and the prosecutrix was also examined. The statement under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded which supports the case of the prosecution and also medial was conducted which prima facie corroborates the case of the prosecution.

6. It has been stated the revisionist is in jail in this case since 3.2.2021 and has spent nearly 3 and half years in custody.

7. It has been submitted that there is no eye witness to the said incident and also as the fact narrated in the First Information Report is highly improbable. The tower in which the incident is said to have occurred is unmanned by the Chaukidar. Further it has been stated that employee has been falsely implicated in the said case due to some land dispute between the parties.

8. The bail has been vehemently opposed by the respondents and has been submitted that considering the age of the prosecutrix and the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are sufficient to implicate the culpability of the juvenile.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Having considered the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is true that a juvenile offender is not entitled as of right to be enlarged on bail, irrespective of any other fact or circumstances, however, it also cannot be denied that in view of specific and special legislative intent and intervention, refusal of bail in the case of a juvenile may be made only for specific reasons and circumstances. Otherwise, a general legislative presumption does appear to exist under the scheme of the Act that the welfare of alleged juvenile offender would be better served without he being confined for long duration.

8. This Court has also gone through the report of Juvenile Justice Board, who have returned adverse report against the revisionist for releasing him on bail. It is submitted that the said report is contested by learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that it is devoid of any judicial sanctity and hence cannot be relied upon.

9. The Court has to see whether the opinion of the appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board recorded in the impugned judgment and orders are in consonance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 12 of the aforesaid Act lays down three contingencies in which bail could be refused to juvenile. They are :- (1) if the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal, or (2) expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger, or (3) that his release would defeat the ends of justice.

10. Gravity of the offence has not been mentioned as a ground for rejection of bail in Section 12 of the aforesaid Act. Though the prayer for bail of the revisionist has been opposed by learned counsel for the opposite parties, but could not demonstrate from the record that there existed any of the grounds on which bail application of a juvenile could be rejected keeping in view the provisions of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act.

11. In the aforesaid circumstances relevant aspect of the case considering the grant of bail to the juvenile would be condition laid down in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act. From the report of the Probationary Officer I do not find anything adverse which may to reject the application of bail. I have also considered the period of custody of juvenile which is 03 years and 08 months accordingly the said application is to be considered keeping in the mind the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the condition laid down therein.

12. Considering the above, it appears that the findings recorded by the learned appellate Court as well as Juvenile Justice Board are erroneous and cannot be sustained. The impugned orders dated 9.9.2022 and 1.11.2022 are hereby set aside. The revisionist has made out a case for his release on bail.

13. Accordingly, present criminal appeal is allowed.

1. Let the revisionist - Shiva involved in Case Crime No. 377/2022 under Section 376 AB of IPC and 5 N/6 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Deeh, District Raibareli, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of his "father", who is his natural guardian with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The revisionist shall not tamper with the evidence, threaten the witnesses or in any manner contact the prosecutrix during course of trial; (ii) The revisionist through guardian shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law; (iii) The revisionist through guardian shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the IPC. (iv) The revisionist or his family members shall not attempt to make any contact with the informant or his family members. . Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Muk (Alok Mathur, J.) MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench